[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Shared library placement proposal

[Jonathan Craig]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> 2011/2/5 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
>> 2011/2/5 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
>>> To me, "libraries [..] should be kept in [...]" implies that "the
>>> actual library, ie: the file" should be kept in...
>>>
>>> That would need to be cleared up, to explicitly allow symlinks.
>>
>> Doesn't the word "should" imply that in well-grounded cases a
>> different approach can be used?
>
> No it doesnt.
>
> I understand what Peter F was saying, reguarding traditional RFC language.
> But lets make our regs readable to "common folks".
>
> Example: If you mean "usually", then say "usually".
> To most folks, "should" == "must".

no "should == should", "must == must".  If you believe "should ==
must" then this could explain some of the infighting on the release
process.  How can one argue against the precise application of
language.  Leaving wiggle room just opens the process up to boundary
cases.  If we go with "should == must" then what do we use for "should
== should".  Why have policy if your not going to use enforceable
terms.   (hold breath; count ten; sorry; rant-off)

Sorry for the sharp reply but I've just come off the week from on-call
hell and this seems a silly argument.

Jon